In 2 It Media v. Key Group Worldwide

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable S. James Otero, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Victor Paul Cruz

Courtroom Clerk

Court Reporter Not Present

PROCEEDINGS (in chambers):

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Key Group Worldwide, LLC, Tara Halper, and Jaret Keller's (collectively, "Defendants") Notice of Removal, filed on November 30, 2009.

Notice of Removal.) For the following reasons, this action is REMANDED.

Under this Court's Standing Order, corporate parties invoking subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity "must state in their Complaint or Notice of Removal sufficient facts demonstrating that this Court may properly exercise subject matter jurisdiction." (See Standing Order ¶ 13 (citing Simmons v. Rosenberg, 572 F. Supp. 823, 825 (E.D.N.Y 1983) ("[D]iversity must be alleged with detail and certainty.")).) Consequently, conclusory allegations of a corporation's principal place of business are insufficient and failure to comply with the Standing Order may result in dismissal or remand. (See Standing Order ¶ 13.)

Defendants have provided insufficient facts to establish that the principal place of business of Defendant Key Group Worldwide, LLC is New York, New York. See Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 1990) ("[T]he principal place of business should be the place where the corporation conducts the most activity that is visible and impacts the public, so that it is least likely to suffer from prejudice against outsiders."). Specifically, when determining a corporate party's principal place of business, the Court looks at six factors including: 1) the location of majority of the corporation's employees; 2) the location of the majority of the corporation's tangible properties; 3) the location of the majority of the corporation's production activities; 4) the location where most of the corporation's income is earned; 5) the location where most of the corporation's purchases are made; and 6) the location where most of the corporation's sales take place. (Standing Order ¶ 13 (citing Indus. Tectonics, Inc., 912 F.2d at 1094).) Defendants state in their Notice of Removal, that Defendant Key Group "is, and at all relevant times herein was, a New York limited liability company, having its principle place of business in New York City, New York." (Defs.' Not. Of Removal ¶ 4.) Defendants fail to provide any information regarding the above mentioned factors considered by the Court when determining the principal place of business of a corporate party. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that while Defendant Key Group Worldwide, LLC is incorporated under the laws of New York, it "does business throughout the United States, including in Los Angeles." (Compl. ¶ 2.) Defendant Keller is an individual and resides in New York, and Defendant Tara Halper is an individual and resides in New York. (Compl. ¶¶ 3,4.) Plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of California and maintains is principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California. (Compl. ¶¶ 3,4.) Complete diversity does not exist if Defendant Key Group Worldwide, LLC is a citizen of California.

Because the conclusory allegations of Defendant Key Group Worldwide, LLC's principal place of business do not comply with this Court's Standing Order, this action is hereby REMANDED. (See Standing Order ¶ 13.)

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.